Point 3 "Notes that it is the particular
responsibility of the European Parliament (by virtue of
the role conferred on it under the new Article
7(1) of the Treaty of Nice) and of its appropriate
committee to ensure (in cooperation with the national
parliaments and the parliaments of the candidate
countries) that both the EU institutions and the Member
States uphold the rights set out in the various
Chapters of the Charter" and

point 8: "Recommends that the report on respect for
fundamental rights in the EU be incorporated into the
warning mechanism provided for in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Treaty on European Union in accordance with the following
principles".

I suggested 27. February 2004 to the EU Commission to
write a directive access to
information (b), because new member states
had to implement access to information and therefore
Germany is outnumbered enough. The EU Commission Office
of the Commissioner Vitori said 23.March
2004 no. On 17. November 200410
I pointed out that according to Articles 6 of the Treaty
on European Union human rights are protected. 17 January
2005 the EU Commission closed the discussion JLS/G3/KG D (2005) 189.

Unfortunately both the EU Commission and the EU Council do not
actively support the "area
of freedom, security and justice" with a
"guarantee for the principles of democracy and respect for
human rights", according to Com 2002/0247 when it
comes to access to information.

I refer to the Joint Declaration by UN, OAS, OSCE Rapporteurs
on International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of
Expression of 6 December 2004 showing your commitment to
the right to access to information: http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2005/2/article1:

The right to access information held by
public authorities is a fundamental human right which should
be given effect at the national level through comprehensive
legislation (for example Freedom of Information Acts) based
on the principle of maximum disclosure, establishing a
presumption that all information is accessible subject only
to a narrow system of exceptions.

Most European countries have implemented access to public
documents according to Recommendation
No. R (81) 19 of the Council of Europe from 1981, making this
a success story in democratic progress. This can be seen
comparing the map of access laws March
2000 and map today in the
OSCE area. But there are unfortunately a few exceptions in south Germany.
Unfortunately Germany does not even translate recommendations of
the CoE(e).

The governments of Serbia (2004) and Montenegro (2005) were the
last countries in Europe to adopted Freedom of Information laws.
Germany (in 12 of 16 lander) and Luxembourg are
now competing to be the last in Europe regarding Freedom of
Information.

In its report to UN on ICCPR: CCPR/C/DEU/2002/5
of 4 December 2002 Germany claims in point 240 to comply with
ICCPR Article 19 (2) and Freedom of Information. It is referred
to of Article 5 of the Basic Law.

But this is wrong because the Article 5 of
the Basic law (In German: Informationsfreiheit)
states expressively: "from generally accessible
sources", i. e. does not provide access to public documents.
Therefore Freedom of Information is missing in Germany. I
complained to the UN (f)
.

Article 1 para 1 of the Basic Law reads as follows: "The dignity of man is
inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all
state authority." This principle follows from Article 1
of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Article
1 para 2 of the Basic Law, "the German people
acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the
basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the
world".

The following basic rights shall bind
the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly
applicable law.

In other words the legislative the executive and the judiciary
are only bound by what follows i. e. basic rights,
not Article 1 para 2 i. e. human rights. According to the Federal
constitution protection law§ 4 (2)
there are "Among the liberal democratic basic order in the
sense of this law (...): g) those human rights which are part of
the Basic Law". Since access to documents is missing in the
German Basic Law (Constitution), it is necessary to add this
human right in order to give Germans the same human rights as
citizens in other civilized countries. Therefore German courts
decide against human rights if there is a conflict, e. g. the
highest Court in the German land Rhineland-Palatine
LG Mainz (1 QS 25/98) stated that the court can not give
access to documents (as human rights would demand), because it is
the parliament, which would have to give this right. This court
expresses here that they are not allowed to do what human rights
would say. Therefore human right violations are well documented(g) in many cases. On the other hand
courts are faithful to laws from pre-democratic times: The Long Arm of the (Nazi) Law (Sueddeutsche
Zeitung 14 June 2003)11.

The deeper problem is Germans history.
Never have Germans been able to create democracy by there own
strength. Germans seem not to know human rights and are not able
to live human rights but they are faithful to
their history where authorities have privileges unknown in the
other democracies in Europe. One of these privilege is that it is
the authority (government/ administration, parliament and court)
who decides whether to answer or to give a reason for the
decision. This is considered unfair treatment by international
standards, but is accepted by German population. Most of
Germans will have to develop from servile spirits to humans.

Germany has signed the ICCPR
but rejected to comment up to now this violation
of human rights in petitions I filed. Therefore I asked for
access to information, cornering the communication between
parliament and ministry regarding these petitions. Both
parliament and ministry refused access. I have been the victim of
many denials of access(a):

I filed a complaint to the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht) Berlin about refusal of access to documents
1, 2 and 4 above(a).
Already the first judgement of the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht) Berlin 25. April 2005 shows that juridical
remedies are ineffective. The sentence says that there is no
legal basis even to ask for access of documents, i. e. the ICCPR
is totally ignored.

During the proceedings at the administrative court documents
of the Petition on Human
Rights Violations in Germany: Invitation of
the Human Rights Commissioner9
where available, showing that German authorities are human rights
phobic. The term "human rights" is never used in their
files. Access to these documents cost approx.  770.- (on
the basis of amount of controversy  12,000.-) because the
case was lost totally. That corresponds to approx. 38 days in
jail asking for access to documents (which is a UN human right)
and a fair answer within reasonable time (which is a fundamental
right in the EU Charter of basic rights). That shows how German
courts defend the old-fashioned authoritarian state by high
costs. The costs of the this lower administrative court are
 770.- see account of the court 27. October 2005.

My investigation13 why Germany
(in 12 of 16 lander) is the only OECD country, only civilized
country and only developed country
without freedom of information seems to indicate that
government, parliament, legal system and the public including the
press does not (want to) know that Germany will soon be the only
country in Europe without Freedom of Information..

When I filed a Constitutional
complaint about this I found out, that the
constitutional court does not give a fair answer: No
reason for denial of the complaint is given i. e. a
violation of Article 6 of the European Human Rights
Convention (g).

My petition on Freedom of
Information of 21. December 2001 has after to years
not yet been answered (9).
(The Committee of Petitions should be the Ombudsman in
Germany). On 1. December 2004 the Committee of Petitions
decided to suggest to the parliament that the petition
should be send to the government.

Germany is in fact often sentenced in the European Court
of Human Rights for violations (g). However nobody in Germany
is interested in the subject.

Germany does not translate
Recommendations of the Council of Europe
(i).

This lack of fair treatment makes a discussion impossible.
Therefore I would appreciate if you could mention these problems
in your reports and discussions with the German government. The
European Court of Human Rights has sentenced Germany many times
because of unfair trials (g).

The only means of complaint on individual level against
the lack of access to public documents I was aware of is a
complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately I
had to start at the district court in Berlin
(d) . On
the way to the European Court of Human Rights I was forced to
have a lawyer at the "Oberverwaltungsgericht". In order
to save my lawyer from a berufsverbot
I have done a intervention at the Bundesgerichtshof (Case 1 ZV
65/02: "Krumbiegel scandal" ) (h).
because I assume that the lawyers monopoly according
to the law on legal advice from 1935 (8) will
not fall soon enough.

With the exception of one
article, German press does not report on this case.
International public and international press seems not to know
about this. Outside Germany this is totally unknown according to
the Internet.

[The health system suffers from structural
problems. I made the following suggestions:

Law to protect patients rights and lawyer clients rights
because the law provisions are difficult to find and not
good enough.

Abolish Chambers of doctors see Imperial Law Gazette
(Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl.
I S. 1433, 13.
December 1935), Lawyers
bar see Imperial Law Gazette (13. December 1935,
Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl I, 1470) and panel doctor
cooperation ("kassenärztlichen
Vereinigungen") see Imperial Law Gazette
(Reichsgesetzblatt, RGBl.
567, 8.
August 1933), as public institutions ("state in
state"), because there is no reasonable reason to
empower the lobbyists of doctors and lawyers with public
power.

Abolish
Act on Legal Counselling (Rechtsberatungsgesetz ) of 13
December 1935 [RGBl. I 1478, BGBl. III 3 Nr. 303-12] to
re-establish freedom in this field, which is common to
the European area of freedom and existed in Germany
before the dictator Adolf Hitler came to power.

Establish scientific research institutions to look at
damages to victims of medical and lawyer activity,
because there is no knowledge about this up to now. ]

The German Criminal Code punishes if Germans communicate violation of
international treaties or violations of the democratic
constitutional order "a foreign
power" (Section 93 (2) and Section 97a):

(1) State secrets are facts, objects or knowledge which
are only accessible to a limited category of persons and must
be kept secret from foreign powers in order to avert a danger
of serious prejudice to the external security of the Federal
Republic of Germany.

(2) Facts which constitute violations of the independent,
democratic constitutional order or of international arms
control agreements by virtue of having been kept secret from
the treaty partners of the Federal Republic of Germany, are
not state secrets.

Whoever communicates a secret, which is not a state secret
because of one of the violations indicated in Section 93
subsection (2), to a foreign power or one of its
intermediaries and thereby creates the danger of serious
prejudice to the external security of the Federal Republic of
Germany, shall be punished as a traitor (Section 94). Section
96 subsection (1), in conjunction with Section 94 subsection
(1), no. 1, shall be correspondingly applicable to secrets of
the type indicated in sentence 1.

German law does not protect Whistleblowers
releasing wrongdoing by public bodies, as UN, OSCE and AOS
propose, but punishes them as "traitor".

EU has repeatedly send me to the Council of Europe regarding
Access to information: The Commission 8
May 2002 and the EU Ombudsman: 7. June 2004have suggested to contact the Council of
Europe regarding human right violations in Germany.

As suggested by EU I have informed
the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe(t) who will review this material in the
context of a future visit(5). In
addition I have informed the Council of Europe about the
situation in Germany(u) in the
context of a survey. I appreciate that the Human Rights
Commissioner will look at the information in the context of a
survey, but I am not sure if he gets invited. No German organisation has given a positive
answer to me. Has EU the possibility of a visit or manage a
invitation?

The President Luzius Wildhaber of the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) criticized the German government and the German
constitutional court. The fact that judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights are not followed by German courts shows
lack of commitment to Europe(v).
Germany violates Article 46 of the European Convention of Human
Rights to obey judgments.

Here is the comment of German authorities to the Caroline
judgement(w): 3. chapter: German
minister of justice says that judgements of the European Court of
Human Rights are not binding for Germany ("Brigitte Zypris
[Ministry of Jusitce] wies auch darauf hin, dass die Straßburger
Entscheidung keine bindende Wirkung für deutsche Gerichte
habe")
This was the answer to
the suggestion of Germany press that the government should
complain against the Caroline
judgement. The German Press Council supported this critic of
human rights(x): and sees a danger
for press freedom(x).

Unfortunately Germany does not follow the conventions of the
Council of Europe here. Since the EU Commission and the EU
Council do not actively support an "area of freedom, security and
justice" with a "guarantee for the
principles of democracy and respect for human rights",
according to Com 2002/0247
I would like to ask the EU parliament for support to start
consultations with German parliaments.

Any other action to promote Freedom of Information and other
human rights in Germany is welcomed, so all Europeans come closer
to enjoy "area of freedom,
security and justice" with a "guarantee for the
(...) respect for human rights".